Melody Belle Trackwork at Flemington 29 October 2019

[Murray Fish]

To this day! into the Lead! Stay there! my fav way to watch my  horse bet!

[Thomass]

19 hours ago, Chief Stipe said:

Case in point.  R4 Te Aroha Siracusa no closer than 3 wide the entire trip.  Bolts in with no blinkers.

As moi said moaner amie....

" if the pace is lazy...it don't matter so much"...

That race was run 9L slower than the very next race...also a MDN 3yo

Sometimes you have to look behind the 'veil' and not be persuaded by the pretty face value...

Besides it's a Vella Fella's neddy and they're often superior

Case closed

[Thomass]

23 hours ago, Chief Stipe said:

 

"The fact was drawing a better marble would have allowed Opee a closer slot...and the overarching fact is that most races are won by those handy to the action."  This statement isn't "fact" it is "FICTION".  The statistics do not support your theory at all.  Actually they don't support any of your theories.

 

I really hate constantly beating you up...but Methinks you make things up as you go along..and you also think that your private school prose will influence the easily led?

Read this...weep...then learn...and you'll be happier having a knowledge base from which to argue more intelligently...

 

 

Daniel O'Sullivan - Settling position changes

Daniel O'Sullivan@TRBHorseRacing

28 October, 2019

, (

Over the past few weeks I’ve written about various angles you can look for in your form study to help create better race assessments and gain an edge over the market in your betting decisions.

I want to continue with that theme this week by taking a look at where horses settle in the run and why you should pay attention to those that are likely to settle notably closer or further back this start compared to last start. 

On average, the closer a horse settles to the lead in a race, the greater its chance of winning. That applies even to favourites, who by nature have the strongest credentials for a race, but aren’t immune to the influence of settling position. 

For example, favourites that settle with 2 lengths of the lead (at the 800m mark) win 36.8 per cent of the time, while those that settle more than 4 lengths off the lead only win 28.5 per cent of the time. The gap is even greater for longer priced horses.

This is one of the reasons why speed maps, or at least having some idea of where horses are likely to settle in the run should be an important part of your race analysis. 

A key focus when studying my speed map is trying to identify runners that I think can settle much closer than they did last start and those that could settle much further back. The following data shows why this is so important.

The Data

The table below compares genuine chances in the market (up to $10 SP) that had a 3 length or more change in their settling position (at the 800m mark) in this run compared to last start, with thanks to PuntingForm sectional data that I use to help keep my database up to date.

You can see what a big difference to winning strike rate and in particular betting returns it makes to settle much closer or further back in the run compared to last start.

There’s an element of these results that are logical. A horse that is 3 lengths or more further back from the lead this start, is very likely to be in an actual position no better than midfield and usually further back, which naturally produces a lower win strike rate than those closer to the lead.

However, even among horses that are positioned well back off the lead, those settling much closer than their last start still provide a higher win strike rate and clearly superior betting returns than others.

All horses up to $10 that were more than 3 lengths from the lead at the 800m mark have a 16.1% winning strike rate and 16.3 per cent betting loss on turnover.

Within that group, those that were 2 lengths or more closer to the lead than last start had just a -1.3 per cent betting loss. For example, this could be a horse that was five to six lengths off the lead last start, but settled three to four lengths off the lead this start.

On the other hand, those 2 lengths or more further back from the lead than last start had a -24.2 percent betting loss. For example, this could be a horse that was three to four lengths off the lead last start, but ended up six lengths or more back off the lead this start. In my opinion, these are the important horses to look for, especially when searching for genuine chances that you want to bet against in a race.

The following table shows the results of genuine chances that settled within one length of the lead last start, but were two to four lengths back off the lead this start.

The price of a horse in the market is heavily influenced by what it did last start. Therefore, being able to identify horses that may be in a more or less favourable position this time can help you to gain an edge.

How can you forecast notable position changes?

If you understand how important notable changes in setting position from one start to the next are, then being able to forecast them is the next piece of the puzzle. 

Of course, we can’t predict with 100% accuracy where each horse will settle, but with a little bit of effort, you can be right more than often enough to help swing the betting percentages in your favour.

The key is to look for specific scenarios that may have positively or negatively impacted a horse’s position last start, which are likely to be different in this race.

Following are some examples that I look for:

Field size: Horses that typically settle off the pace and are coming from a small field last start to a much larger field this start are a good chance to settle further back in the run. The reverse also applies. 

Barrier draw changes: Sometimes simply drawing further in or out can be enough to impact a horse’s settling position from one start to the next. Don’t make the mistake though of assuming this is automatically the case. It’s important to understand how the early speed in a race maps and whether the barrier draw change will really have a major influence.

Changes in the number of speed horses drawn inside: This is where a little bit of video work can pay dividends. You can often identify horses that actually jumped well last start, but ended up settling further back than they otherwise could have been, simply because of a number of similar or faster speed horses drawn inside. If the scenario looks to be different in this race, then you can confidently forecast that the horse will settle closer. The reverse also applies where a horse may have more speed horses drawn inside it in this race compared to last start.

Horses that benefited from a lack of early competition in a race: In smaller fields or even more average size fields that lack early pace, the horses often jump from the barriers and there’s very little early competition. Jockeys don’t need to display any great urgency to find their position and the field gradually falls into shape, without any runner doing unnecessary early work. Some horses can benefit from this in regards to their settling position, especially if they jumped from an inside barrier. Coming to a race that looks much more competitive early will usually see them settle further back. 

Blinkers on or off: The addition of blinkers can often help a horse become more focused, show greater early speed and settle closer in the run. Blinkers off can have the opposite effect. This gear change is also often a sign that the trainer wants the horse to relax more in the run, which can lead to a more conservative ride. 

Pace Changes: A horse that comes off a fast run race where they looked out of their comfort zone and drifted well back off the lead can often settle closer at their next start if the pace is less hectic and especially if it is slower than average. Of course, the reverse also applies where a horse may have benefited from a slower than average pace, but is in a race this time that is likely to be run faster early. 

Today’s betting landscape with a combination of increased market percentages due to higher taxes and the general tough level of competition from other players means that we must all be trying to constantly improve and become smarter in our analysis. 

Having an awareness of and applying these types of principles that go beyond the traditional type of form analysis can help you to do that. 

Even if you already use a speed map, don’t just gloss over where a horse is likely to settle for this race. It’s well worth taking some time to check how that compares to last start and factor that into your assessments.

[mardigras]

I'm pretty confident that if she had drawn further in, she would have been in the same position as she was. Maybe one horse further forward, maybe further back/last. We'll never know since they aren't able to rerun the race under such changes.

Just my opinion of course. 

[Chief Stipe]

Oh dear now I understand where Thomaas gets his dumb theories from and I thought they were developed by him.

The latest article is just opinion underpinned by dubious stats.

BTW I didn't have a private school education but was educated by Teachers who used old methods and focussed on literacy and numeracy.  Seems Thomaas missed most of his classes.

[Thomass]

As I thought....no thought just a mindless retort...

Dan is the Doyen of Australian form analysis and is a Professional Punter...like moi

I can give you his twitter handle or personal Email if you'd like to poo poo his ideas??

[mardigras]

He must be good given he is part of The Racing Bureau. 

Making money from others is certainly professional. Odd.

Why don't you sign up to one of their services. He'll appreciate that

[mardigras]

You just have to read his twitter crap to fully understand how delusional he is and how much of a fraud he is. @downestips what a crackup.

[Sandpiper]

What's wrong with the data?

Would want to guard against cherry-picking the 3 lengths figure by establishing more of a trend. Seems reasonable on the face of it though. Disclaimer: I have found similar data in NZ using running style profiles rather than sectionals so I'm biased.

[mardigras]

7 hours ago, Sandpiper said:

What's wrong with the data?

Would want to guard against cherry-picking the 3 lengths figure by establishing more of a trend. Seems reasonable on the face of it though. Disclaimer: I have found similar data in NZ using running style profiles rather than sectionals so I'm biased.

There is nothing wrong with the data as such Sandpiper.

The straight stats are just that, stats. And as suggested near the top, somewhat logical. Horses closer to the lead are going to win more races.

Here’s a stat. Horses that were in front at the line had a higher strike rate and ROI than those horses that were not in front at the line.

The problem with both stats is how do you identify the horses that fit the noted ‘Event’.

(And the other problem with the stats is that they are simply stats – and such stats on their own are at best likely to continue with strike rate, but not as likely to continue with ROI).

Issue 1.

So back to the identification part.

In the first set of stats

If we call identifying those horses that run 3L or more closer to the lead as EVENT A.

And those horses that run 3L or more further back from the lead as EVENT B.

We need a way of identifying EVENT A and EVENT B – before the race. Not after like Thomass.

So he writes about possible ways to identify these events.

No where in that report, does he correlate his suggested scenarios with the identification of the 4747 horses we know of as EVENT A or the 3732 horses known as EVENT B.

For all I know, he could do what he suggests and end up with 2000 of those EVENT A horses pre race with a strike rate of 17% and a POT of -7.5%. And from the same set of historical races, identify a further 2000 horses he believes to be EVENT A horses with who knows what outcomes.

The scenarios he has presented as being useful for identifying these things are just opinion. Using historical ‘generic’ data to support a series of hypothesis around how you identify with that data, if you can’t obtain the same EVENTS using the scenarios, then it's worthless info.

If he said using these techniques, I was able to determine these EVENT A horses pre race no problem. Or in identifying horses that meet with EVENT A pre race, I obtained an equivalent set of results. There is nothing to support the theories correlate to the EVENTs.

I suspect the biggest factor in the difference between EVENT A and EVENT B is field size. But I have no facts to even support that. Just that it is logical.

Issue 2.

Nothing is presented in the data that states what the expected number of wins was from EVENT A horses or EVENT B horses (even based on SP).

In the data above, it is possible that 1/SP for all EVENT A horses added up to 1020 even though only 1011 horses won. So maybe more should have won based on price than actually did.

And for EVENT B horses, the 1/SP total may have added up to only 500 even though 511 EVENT B horses won. So maybe more actually won based on price than expected from this group.

The sample is so small, the ROI and strike rates could easily relate to field size. The ROI is very dependant on what wins in the sample and has no relationship with a future sample.

What if the average field size of EVENT A horses was 7. And the average field size of EVENT B horses was 11.

Summary

Useless from a punting perspective apart from the notion that being closer to the leader likely means you have a better chance of winning. I think most would know that anyway.

Stats on small samples are meaningless with respect to strike rate and especially to ROI.

Correlating the method of how you define an EVENT occurring must be done in order to validate that you can identify the EVENT occurring.

This type of thing is the exact type of thing Thomas is so known for.

Such as in his case. An EVENT of a horse winning.

The scenario. Put blinkers on first time.

Correlation between scenario and event occurring. Only known after the race has run. Not before.

And Thomas shows us that by putting up the winners with Blinkers On – after they’ve won.

[mardigras]

8 hours ago, Sandpiper said:

Disclaimer: I have found similar data in NZ using running style profiles rather than sectionals so I'm biased.

And if you have the methods of identifying the events that will then lead to you being able to identify the horses pre race that may be advantaged by X, then that could easily be built into how you adjust their chance etc - to then use that in punting. So all good there.

[Sandpiper]

Ah of course thanks Mardi. I made the leap that the author was only using sectional data from previous starts when that wasnt the case. As in "horses projected to be < 3 lengths from the lead'. 

Amazing that the ROI was so minimal frankly.

[holy ravioli]

former top Sydney jockey Kevin Langby on riding winners...'put your horse in the first 1/2 dozen,angle for a clear run in the straight and go for your life.'

[Thomass]

2 hours ago, mardigras said:

And if you have the methods of identifying the events that will then lead to you being able to identify the horses pre race that may be advantaged by X, then that could easily be built into how you adjust their chance etc - to then use that in punting. So all good there.

Yea, like observing Blinkers "can make a horse show greater early speed"

O'Sullivan is an expert in his field....

...and you the ultimate Sultan of Sophistry...is trying to tell Dan how it's done...

...you don't even use Speed Maps in your Stats based analysis ffs...

...chuck a bunch of stats into the old PC then arbitrage the shit out of it...

pffft

[mardigras]

13 minutes ago, Thomass said:

Yea, like observing Blinkers "can make a horse show greater early speed"

O'Sullivan is an expert in his field....

...and you the ultimate Sultan of Sophistry...is trying to tell Dan how it's done...

...you don't even use Speed Maps in your Stats based analysis ffs...

...chuck a bunch of stats into the old PC then arbitrage the shit out of it...

pffft

You don't observe blinkers - you've stated you trust the trainer. And we've all seen the results of that trust from the selections I've put up pre race that match that.

I don't use stats. I don't do arbitrage (very good reasons for that as well).

I haven't the skill to determine the impact to chance such stats would make. So I ignore them. I've got enough information to know just how useless stats like that actually are. So I'm happy for you to keep on believing them. Just don't tell others they can win by doing so.

You're the one using stats. For a start, all the posts about punting by O'Sullivan are statistical based - and you love em. It's no doubt why you lose. Stats like that are useless as you've proven since you are unable to define the "WHEN' the stat IS going come into effect before the race. And in that post from O'Sullivan, neither could he. Probably why he has to run a business selling racing information to others.

 

Edited November 13, 2019 by mardigras

[Chief Stipe]

On 13/11/2019 at 10:49 AM, Thomass said:

Blinkers on or off: The addition of blinkers can often help a horse become more focused, show greater early speed and settle closer in the run. Blinkers off can have the opposite effect. This gear change is also often a sign that the trainer wants the horse to relax more in the run, which can lead to a more conservative ride.

Thomaas even your guru doesn't offer any help with the Blinkers on or off!  "The addition of blinkers can often help a horse become more focused, show greater early speed and settle closer in the run." 

Bit vague and some horses actually do the opposite!  But once again even the guru nor you can predict BEFORE the race if blinkers are on will they have the desired effect that the trainer wants even though we don't know what the trainer wants!

"Blinkers off can have the opposite effect. This gear change is also often a sign that the trainer wants the horse to relax more in the run, which can lead to a more conservative ride."

Ditto comment as above.  How do we know BEFORE the race what the desired effect is?  Wouldn't the blinkers off a field shy horse make it relax less?

 

[Thomass]

31 minutes ago, Chief Stipe said:

Thomaas even your guru doesn't offer any help with the Blinkers on or off!  "The addition of blinkers can often help a horse become more focused, show greater early speed and settle closer in the run." 

Bit vague and some horses actually do the opposite!  But once again even the guru nor you can predict BEFORE the race if blinkers are on will they have the desired effect that the trainer wants even though we don't know what the trainer wants!

"Blinkers off can have the opposite effect. This gear change is also often a sign that the trainer wants the horse to relax more in the run, which can lead to a more conservative ride."

Ditto comment as above.  How do we know BEFORE the race what the desired effect is?  Wouldn't the blinkers off a field shy horse make it relax less?

 

Here's some news for you Chef...and I want you to read this very closely....

THEYRE NOT F IN ROBOTS...ok?

If we were betting on slots the algorithms could be accurately assessed for ground made good via the Cape without cover with Blinkers concentrating the metal mind...

Get a grip then...

Speed Maps are used by many modern day punters now...from the O'Sullivan research it appears to be an important thang...

My advice is don't use it if you can't understand even basic knowledge about the use of Blinkers and their possible effects....on animals

Nothing is set in stone with animals...wtf knew?

[mardigras]

It looks like we know the possible effects. What you and your mate can't do is tell which horses and which of those possible affects are going to apply before the races. Which is the very reason you have to wait until after the races are over to tell us.

Instead, you keep ramming this idea on this site. With no supporting evidence. Post race winners are not evidence of anything.

Edited November 13, 2019 by mardigras

[MarkyMark]

5 hours ago, Thomass said:

Yea, like observing Blinkers "can make a horse show greater early speed"

O'Sullivan is an expert in his field....

...and you the ultimate Sultan of Sophistry...is trying to tell Dan how it's done...

...you don't even use Speed Maps in your Stats based analysis ffs...

...chuck a bunch of stats into the old PC then arbitrage the shit out of it...

pffft

it shows your lack of understanding with horses.  As others will be able to tell you here, and ive had plenty of experience with helping with training horses, and racing, and blinkers on dont always work.  we were also a punting stable, it can be very hit and miss.

have also experienced many a time jockeys suggesting blinkers on, different jockey will suggest blinkers off, then vice versa.

it can be hit and miss, blinkers first time you cant possibly tell from a punting perspective if that will increase chances, complete unknown.  

but without question for some horses, they react better in their races and have also experienced were we always used blinkers for some particular horses, from a punting perspective for me, the only way you can really identify without knowing the horse is to compare race starts both with and without blinkers, assess overall performance based on those 2 groups and if their is a clear bias, then you have an identifiable trend to follow.

i also agree with others your punting theories are very very questionable and without trying to sound harsh, you beat your own drum so loudly, but have no substance to support your solo

[MarkyMark]

4 hours ago, Chief Stipe said:

Thomaas even your guru doesn't offer any help with the Blinkers on or off!  "The addition of blinkers can often help a horse become more focused, show greater early speed and settle closer in the run." 

Bit vague and some horses actually do the opposite!  But once again even the guru nor you can predict BEFORE the race if blinkers are on will they have the desired effect that the trainer wants even though we don't know what the trainer wants!

"Blinkers off can have the opposite effect. This gear change is also often a sign that the trainer wants the horse to relax more in the run, which can lead to a more conservative ride."

Ditto comment as above.  How do we know BEFORE the race what the desired effect is?  Wouldn't the blinkers off a field shy horse make it relax less?

 

there are so many variables. 

[mardigras]

2 hours ago, MarkyMark said:

there are so many variables. 

Certainly must be. 

I punt to profit and have done so for over 20 years and can't decipher the variables.

Neither can the person who is apparently NZ's most prolific tipster of winning thoroughbreds - at value, decipher the variables. He has demonstrated that on here.

And based on the above blog from Daniel O'Sullivan, he can't either.

Can you? 

[MarkyMark]

3 hours ago, mardigras said:

Certainly must be. 

I punt to profit and have done so for over 20 years and can't decipher the variables.

Neither can the person who is apparently NZ's most prolific tipster of winning thoroughbreds - at value, decipher the variables. He has demonstrated that on here.

And based on the above blog from Daniel O'Sullivan, he can't either.

Can you? 

not a chance mate, can only assess the runner to the field.  Thoroughbreds are very temperamental, then with all the race, tempo, etc etc my way is going by balance of probability and comparing tab price to my own expectation of price.  

[Thomass]

16 hours ago, MarkyMark said:

it shows your lack of understanding with horses.  As others will be able to tell you here, and ive had plenty of experience with helping with training horses, and racing, and blinkers on dont always work.  we were also a punting stable, it can be very hit and miss.

have also experienced many a time jockeys suggesting blinkers on, different jockey will suggest blinkers off, then vice versa.

it can be hit and miss, blinkers first time you cant possibly tell from a punting perspective if that will increase chances, complete unknown.  

but without question for some horses, they react better in their races and have also experienced were we always used blinkers for some particular horses, from a punting perspective for me, the only way you can really identify without knowing the horse is to compare race starts both with and without blinkers, assess overall performance based on those 2 groups and if their is a clear bias, then you have an identifiable trend to follow.

i also agree with others your punting theories are very very questionable and without trying to sound harsh, you beat your own drum so loudly, but have no substance to support your solo

You raised this with me back in Aug '18...

To repeat Ive spent 40 years in the Industry...managed Stud farms, in racing stables etc

In short Im a horseman and thoroughly conversant with all facets of the Industry including horse behaviour...

My 'Blinkers' use in punting is very limited...e.g I'll add @ 20% to an investment if that horse meets the required standard of my form analysis 

The only niche I have for JUST Blinkers is mainly in Maiden racing...

Alors...if a neddy has reached a standard performance mark for maiden gallopers and we know BLINKERS can have a marked difference on SOME horses...let's say 50% for arguments sake...

...then at some point a 'value' bet component will come into the equation...

...and realising NZ is the perfect place to find value with wide ranging track conditions on many tracks with different surfaces...

What other theories do you find "very very questionable" and I'll answer them

And I certainly don't beat my drum...that's the other bloke who claims 20 years of pro stuff...even though he finds value on a Whanganui H11 Rail position and thinks 'wide without cover' don't mean much

[mardigras]

You didn't answer to the first of your questionable theories. Hardly likely you can answer to any of them. Since they are all flawed.

You don't beat your own drum? Like your total wank about guiness records? You're a fraud. You've proven it. 

Now your 'blinkers use' is very limited. Yet you've claimed many times that blinkers on is the best legal go fast. That's a quick turnaround. You just make shit up day to day don't you Mr Fraud?

 

[mardigras]

50 minutes ago, Thomass said:

...that's the other bloke who claims 20 years of pro stuff...

Proven - and can be proven again. That's the difference. I'm not beating my drum, I am adding credibility to what I write. You on the hand are a fraud and have zero credibility.

Edited November 14, 2019 by mardigras